zac wrote:i'd really love to hear more about what everyone knows about the buddha's teachings on death. pretty please?

Death of what, though?

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

zac wrote:i'd really love to hear more about what everyone knows about the buddha's teachings on death. pretty please?

Death of what, though?

Metta,Retro.

so... i'm not sure where to go from here. we are going to micro manage the way things are worded to the point that i have to explain what the phrase "the buddha's teachings on death." means??? i think everyone knows what i mean.

The reason I ask, is because the reality is arising and cessation. What we would conventionally call "death" is a concept. As I quoted earlier...

Bhikkhu Nanananda wrote:All concepts of 'going', 'coming', 'being born', 'growing old' and 'dying' are to be found in the prolific. They simply do not exist in the nonprolific.

In other words, if there is no proliferation there is no death. This is why arahants can attain 'the deathless', here-and-now, namely because they have transcended the proliferation (and its underlying ignorance) that conceives of a "thing" that can "die".

Though I'm sure that you're thinking of something very different with your assumed definition, taking something as given which perhaps should not be taken as such... which is why we ask. The questions aren't as pedantic as you make them out to be.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

The reason I ask, is because the reality is arising and cessation. What we would conventionally call "death" is a concept. As I quoted earlier...

Bhikkhu Nanananda wrote:All concepts of 'going', 'coming', 'being born', 'growing old' and 'dying' are to be found in the prolific. They simply do not exist in the nonprolific.

In other words, if there is no proliferation there is no death. This is why arahants can attain 'the deathless', here-and-now, namely because they have transcended the proliferation (and its underlying ignorance) that conceives of a "thing" that can "die".

Though I'm sure that you're thinking of something different, taking something as given which perhaps should not be taken as such... which is why we ask. The questions aren't as pedantic as you make them out to be.

Metta,Retro.

ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium. at some point the speaker says exactly what i wrote in the original topic. they would all assume what the speaker meant by these words because it's not convoluted or difficult to understand. when he said "any questions?" they would not raise their hands and point out possible flaws in the minute parts of his talk.

making assumptions is the only way we can function. if everything is picked apart then things come to a standstill, like this thread! explaining every little word in depth would turn each topic into a book and even then things could be picked apart. imagine you are talking to a buddhist monk and he says "rebirth" are you going to correct him?????? not that i'm a monk but why do this here if you wouldn't do it there? is it solving anything or making the conversation run more smoothly? i've heard monks and nuns say many things that are a little off and, unless i'm genuinely confused, i would never ever start pointing these "mistakes" out. again i don't equate myself with a monk! i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same? from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?

ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.

Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.

i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?

Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).

from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?

If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.

You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.

Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.

Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.

i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?

Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).

from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?

If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.

You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.

Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.

Metta,Retro.

ok so you're saying that i have to be suuuuuuuuuuper specific. it seemed that people knew what i meant at first and then the debate about the word "rebirth" messed everything up. i don't think anyone would be confused to read in a book or even the title of a book "the buddha's teachings on death.". the only way to make this confusing is to spin it into the mess of deep thinking philosophy around the idea of "no self" and other complicated buddhist ideals. i really just wanted to hear about what the original teachings were on death. and i think anyone who read my topic knew i meant "what are the buddha's teachings on what happens to a persons' consciousness between the moment of physical death and the transferring of their karmic storehouse to a new body.". i do love semantics as i was raised by and english professor! that's the funny part! but sometimes it's nice to just have a conversation without everything being immaculately perfect in wording.

ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.

Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.

i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?

Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).

from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?

If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.

You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.

Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.

Metta,Retro.

ok i think i have an excellent way to put this! if you and i were both novelists, i would be richard stark and you would be robert ludlum!!!! that's it!

if you don't know; ludlum's novels (bourne series and others) are always above four hundred pages and stark's ("the hunter" made into a film called "payback" with mel gibson and many others) are almost never more than two hundred, sometimes even one fifty. ludlum gives lots of detail and different angles on things and stark... well he writes starkly, including only the bare essentials needed to tell a story. ludlum feels that to get his point across everything must be very clearly explained and stark feels that people will just get it.

also this is not a bad thing, i love both authors!

also what did you mean when you said my signature quote is "anonymous"? because i didn't say it came from the samyutta nikaya?

zac, people are at different places on the path, to say "you get born again" is not sufficient for some as they are beyond that type of understanding, yet other people that is all they need to know.the problem here, if it is a problem(i don't think so), is that Buddhism while perfectly fine as a "regular" religion that just tells you what to believe has more profound teaching that require you to ask the tough questions yourself and figure out things. there are different sorts of Buddhists, this was true even in the Buddha's time, he said there are those who follow on faith and those who must test everything for themselves the interesting thing is those who follow on faith practice cause they believe the teaching will work and so when they work they reach the deathless, and those who feel the need to test everything will practice and see if the teaching work and when they do will reach the deathless. this post in a good example of how teaching work on these levels, when i 1st read the thread i was like "meh boring" but then when cooran and retro posted what they posted i was like "hmmm interesting" the more complex/philosophical answers force you to ask questions, maybe at first you're like "what the hell does that mean?" but its a start.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

The Buddha had no qualms about speaking of I or you being reborn. It seems to only be folks on internet forums who have such qualms. Personally, zac, I found your original question clear and easy to understand. And I am glad you received relevant answers. In short, the Buddha didn't say much about what happens between death and birth. He said so little, in fact, that I personally have found it unhelpful to dwell on the topic.

zac wrote:also what did you mean when you said my signature quote is "anonymous"? because i didn't say it came from the samyutta nikaya?

Yes, a sutta name and/or reference number would be good.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Nina van Gorkom wrote:What we take for a person, a being, are in the ultimate sense citta, cetasika and rupa which arise and fall away all the time. The dying of what we call a person is not different from what occurs at this moment, namely, birth and death of nama and rupa. The last citta of this life-span falls away and is then succeeded by the first citta of the next life. We read in the "Dispeller of Delusion" (Commentary to the Book of Analysis, Ch 4, Classification of the Truths, 101) that there are three kinds of deaths: momentary death, conventional death and death as "cutting-off":

... Herein, "momentary death" is the breaking-up of the rupas and namas during the course (of an existence). "Tissa is dead", "Phussa is dead"; this is called "conventional death". The completing of his time (kalakiriya) without liability to rebirth-linking by one who has destroyed the cankers is called "death by cutting-off"....

Conventional death is the ending of someone's life-span; at that moment the dying-consciousness arises and falls away. So long as one has not attained arahatship, death will be followed by rebirth. The "death by cutting off" is the final passing away of the arahat who has no conditions for rebirth. Through insight we can understand by direct experience the momentary death, that is, the impermanence, of nama and rupa. The understanding of momentary death will help us to have less fear or grief when we are confronted with "conventional death", the ending of a life-span.

Virgo, if you're reading this, I hope you didn't fall out of your chair in shock...

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

obviously we all know the over all idea of karma affecting one's rebirth. you die and are reborn in one of six realms in such and such conditions depending on your merit. as far as my studies have gone, in a nutshell, this is all that was said on the topic.

did the buddha ever say what the process was between the moment of death and the moment of birth?

again as far as i know he did not, which in my opinion, would imply that one is instantaneously transferred from one's dead body to an awaiting fetus or egg/sperm combo.

does anyone know any more about this?

Sometime ago I contacted Bhikkhu Bodhi and asked him about a seeming discrepency between the abhidhamma and the accounts in the suttas regarding rebirth. The abhidhammic point of view is that rebirth happens in the next mind-moment following death where as in the suttas, there is evidence to suggest that there is an intermediary state.Venerable was very generous and confirmed my observation and copied an article he hadd written on the subject.If I get time, I'll dig out his response, which I am sure, I have already posted on DW somewhere else.kind regards

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

I recall Bhikkhu Bodhi saying similar things in the footnotes to a couple of suttas across the Samyutta and Majjhima Nikayas so it would be interesting to read a consolidated view of what he has to say on the matter.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Actually, it could have been those footnotes Retro. I'll dig it out later tonight.I just have to rush off in a little while to group-sit!metta

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Commentaries on Udana Katha elaborate on the word, "foothold". When a yogi loses hold of craving and egoistic views, absolving himself from the ideas of "I", or "Mine", or "My ego-entity", he cannot get rooted in sense-objects. About this Buddha has this to say:

"Malukyaputta! When you lose your foothold on the objects of sense, your //namarupa// (aggregates of mind and matter) will neither be here in this world, nor there in the other world. And this being not anywhere in both worlds means the end of suffering."

When ego-entity has no standing //namarupa// ceases to exist in all possible worlds either in this or the other world; and this cessation means the end of suffering. It becomes apparent when the yogi's mind gets inclined to Nibbana through the realization of the Noble Path. When an Arahat enters Nibbana no vestiges of //namarupa// remain. As soon as death consciousness occurs at the time of //parinibbana//, he achieves //anupadisesa nibbana//, all strata of existence not remaining. Regarding this the Commentaries say that when a yogi loses his foothold on //rupa//, he is neither here in the six organs of the senses, nor there in the six sense-doors nor anywhere in the six types of consciousness.

This agrees with the actual experience of the meditating yogi who has acquired //bhanga// and //sankhaupekkha nana//. No //kilesa// can arise in him on his realization of the truth of the nature of matter in a state of flux. He takes a highly impersonal and objective view of the sights and sounds that he sees and hears. After that the attainment of //anuloma nana//, knowledge of adaptation, will qualify him for the higher path. Then he enters the stream of //gotrabhu// consciousness that exalts him to a sublime stage, overcoming the Sense Sphere lineage. On the abandonment of the Sphere of the Senses, he actually realizes Nibbana.

"A yogi, developing mindfulness step by step reaches the stage of non-occurrence (of //namarupa//) having crossed over the stage of continual occurrence. O King! One who has entered the stage of non-occurrence with correct meditational practice may be said to have come face to face with Nibbana."

I raise this primarily because "neither be here in this world, nor there in the other world" is sometimes interpreted to refer to an intermediate state, whereas instead it is referring to "when ego-entity has no standing"... something far more subtle.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

There definitely seem to be suggestions in the suttas that there is a temporal gap, an intermediate state, between lives, at least with respect to rebirth in the human realm and in the case of non-returners. I have a long note to the Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Samyutta Nikaya), chapter 46, which explores this question in regard to the fivefold distinction among non-returners. I will paste it in below.

The position that rebirth is instantaneous is strongly maintained by the Theravada commentaries, but other schools of Indian Buddhism based on the early collections (pre-Mahayana) supported an intermediate state. This became a ground of contention among the Buddhist schools, sometimes generating a lot of emotional friction, but the issue seems to be given very little importance in the early discourses. Nevertheless, there are passages that suggest (quite clearly, in my opinion) that there is an intermediate state. For example, the famous Metta Sutta speaks of extending loving-kindness to 'bhuutaa vaa sambhavesii vaa' -- "to beings who have come to be and those about to come to be" -- and the suttas on nutriment say that the four kinds of nutriment are "for the maintence of those that have come to be and to assist those about to come to be." Those beings that are sambhavesii, "about to come to be" (or "seeking existence") must be an allusion to those in the intermediate state seeking a new rebirth.

See too SN 44:9, in which Vacchagotta asks the Buddha: "When a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?" The Buddha does not reject V's question by asserting that such a situation is impossible. He says, rather, that in such a situation "I declare that it is fueled by craving.382 For on that occasion craving is its fuel."

Note 382 reads:382. Tam aha˙ ta˚hÒp›d›na˙ vad›mi. The Buddha’s statement seems to imply that a temporal gap can intervene between the death moment and reconception. Since this contradicts Therav›da orthodoxy, Spk contends that at the death moment itself the being is said to be “not yet reborn” because the rebirth-consciousness has not yet arisen.

I have also found evidence for beings in this state from the reported rebirth memories of people who (without meditative experience) can recollect their previous life and death. Several cases I have read of this type report that the being, after passing away, spends some time moving about in a subtle body (identical in form with their previous body, hence with a sense of the same personal identity) until they find themselves drawn towards a particular couple, who then become their new parents. Some cases like this are included in Francis Story's book, Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience (published by the Buddhist Publcation Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka).

See too Peter Harvey's book, The Selfless Mind (Curzon) which I refer to in the note below.65 This fivefold typology of nonreturners recurs at 48:15, 24, 66; 51:26; 54:5; and 55:25. Spk explains the antar›parinibb›yı (“attainer of Nibb›na in the interval”) as one reborn in the Pure Abodes who attains arahantship during the first half of the life span. This type is subdivided into three, depending on whether arahantship is reached: (i) on the very day of rebirth; (ii) after one or two hundred aeons have elapsed; or (iii) after four hundred aeons have elapsed. The upahaccaparinibb›yı (“attainer of Nibb›na upon landing”) is explained as one who attains arahantship after passing the first half of the life span. For Spk, the asaºkh›raparinibb›yı (“attainer without exertion”) and the sasaºkh›raparinibb›yı (“attainer with exertion”) then become two modes in which the first two types of nonreturners attain the goal. This explanation originates from Pp 16–17 (commented on at Pp-a 198–201). However, not only does this account of the first two types disregard the literal meaning of their names, but it also overrides the sequential and mutually exclusive nature of the five types as delineated elsewhere in the suttas (see below). If we understand the term antar›parinibb›yı literally, as it seems we should, it then means one who attains Nibb›na in the interval between two lives, perhaps while existing in a subtle body in the intermediate state. The upahaccaparinibb›yı then becomes one who attains Nibb›na “upon landing” or “striking ground” in the new existence, i.e., almost immediately after taking rebirth. The next two terms designate two types who attain arahantship in the course of the next life, distinguished by the amount of effort they must make to win the goal. The last, the uddha˙sota akani˛˛hag›mı, is one who takes rebirth in successive Pure Abodes, completes the full life span in each, and finally attains arahantship in the Akani˛˛ha realm, the highest Pure Abode.This interpretation, adopted by several non-Therav›da schools of early Buddhism, seems to be confirmed by the Purisagati Sutta (AN IV 70–74), in which the simile of the flaming chip suggests that the seven types (including the three kinds of antar›parinibb›yı) are mutually exclusive and have been graded according to the sharpness of their faculties. Additional support comes from AN II 134,25–29, which explains the antar›parinibb›yı as one who has abandoned the fetter of rebirth (upapattisa˙yojana) without yet having abandoned the fetter of existence (bhavasa˙yojana). Though the Therav›din proponents argue against this interpretation of antar›parinibb›yı (e.g., at Kv 366), the evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour. For a detailed discussion, see Harvey, The Selfless Mind, pp. 98–108. AN II 155–56 draws an alternative distinction between the sasaºkh›raparinibb›yı and the asaºkh›raparinibb›yı: the former reaches arahantship through meditation on the “austere” meditation subjects such as the foulness of the body, the perception of the repulsiveness of food, discontent with the whole world, the perception of impermanence in all formations, and mindfulness of death; the latter, through the four jh›nas."

=====================================================

with mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

The Buddha had no qualms about speaking of I or you being reborn. It seems to only be folks on internet forums who have such qualms. Personally, zac, I found your original question clear and easy to understand. And I am glad you received relevant answers. In short, the Buddha didn't say much about what happens between death and birth. He said so little, in fact, that I personally have found it unhelpful to dwell on the topic.